|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 18:47:01 GMT -6
hmm.. I'm not sure how UMG's deal with facebook relates to the return to Fractional Licensing, but the timing seems coincidental..
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 18:34:41 GMT -6
in the picture of the WARM guts, it shows 2 transformers on the side, and then the two square ones on the bottom. Are those on the bottom the output transformers? Is that gut shot showing the 2 channel + EQ box?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 18:17:38 GMT -6
Guess we'll just have to go back to how things were in 1997. Edited because the sarcasm wasn’t kind. Anyway - merry Christmas all! what, back to before all those kids that need CHIP were born?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 17:58:52 GMT -6
Really, it’s the label’s choice. Unless it’s Taylor Swift or the like...and they’re not going to turn down that revenue. so, the consent decree is meaningless?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 17:54:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 17:51:05 GMT -6
can't you just use plugins that don't require offline processing? Offline processing seems like such an antiquated approach to production that was spawned from the days of not enough CPU horsepower a decade ago...
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 17:47:19 GMT -6
hmmm. perhaps the consent decree would mean that if one of a UMG artist's song's songwriters said they don't want their tunes showing up in facebook videos, then facebook/UMG would have to issue a DMCA against the uploader and get the video taken down. Either way, content creators on facebook don't get paid for the content they create, unlike on youtube.
So, this is just about Facebook being able to finally sell ads alongside everyone's lyric or dance videos that use a UMG song a Facebook user uploads without fear of reprimand from UMG's lawyers..
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 17:42:07 GMT -6
Hell I don't even know what Neutron is...gonna have to go check. it's cheating is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 12:32:49 GMT -6
hand wiring just adds a ton of labor and complexity. I'll take Colin's ez1073 all day over this with some Marconi knobs from Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 12:28:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 21, 2017 12:24:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 20, 2017 16:55:33 GMT -6
if you don't even use UAD, why do you care?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 21:51:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 19:45:08 GMT -6
I also wonder why no one has made a multichannel AD/DA interface with built-in intel CPU for running iLok plugins and VI's with superlow latency and outputing analog or digital. because everyone has different opinions as to what AD/DAs should sound like. Also, Intel vs AMD. Also iLok vs Cubase Dongle.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 19:38:14 GMT -6
I think it meant that if we wrote a song together, a company like Spotify would only need MY permission or YOUR permission to use it. they wouldn't need all parties' permission to use it. I could license to Spotify 100% of the song. Spotify would still pay out the proper percentages to both of us, but they don't need permission from both of us to use the song.
I can see how a streaming service would really benefit from this if one of the partial owners of a song is the record label. That label could have their entire catalog played on Spotify without the permission of the rest of the songwriters because the label co-owned the song with the songwriters. that would mean that the songwriters would be stuck with whatever rate the label negotiated for song use.
As of this Consent Decree ruling, spotify would need to get permission from ALL parties before they can use the song. At least, that's what I believe it means.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 17:21:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 17:21:02 GMT -6
I'd bet that they are relying on the hundreds of new Apollo Twin customers these days over folks that need Apollo 16s or whatever. Apogee went the same route, looking for customers who only need to spend under $1000.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 17:07:07 GMT -6
Nope you need a fresh AUTH file from the UAD account. you're wrong. They ditched the downloading of the Auth file manually a long time ago. now you just click the Authorize Plugins button in the UAD Meter and Control Panel app.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 16:59:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 4:35:12 GMT -6
Here's what I don't get. It's easy enough to just send someone the installers for the latest UAD drivers via dropbox or whatever. They install it on their system, plug in the hardware, and boom, they have UAD stuff working on their computer. Sure, they can't buy new plugins, but they can use whatever is currently authorized with the hardware. If you're selling everything, then they're fine. It seems to me that the problems arise when you want keep your plugins and sell only your hardware. Am i missing anything here?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 18, 2017 16:38:04 GMT -6
Can't you just change your account login and give it to the new person so they can login themselves to the account? update the address on file, etc... What actually gets changed when you change ownership?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 16, 2017 15:26:02 GMT -6
matt can you post a screenshot showing all of your instances?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 16, 2017 2:54:33 GMT -6
the imac pro is built with server hardware.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 15, 2017 21:00:54 GMT -6
@dogear can you drop some TL;DR versions of your posts?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 15, 2017 20:50:56 GMT -6
|
|